Skip to main content
Social Sci LibreTexts

9.10: Sample 2- Poor Peer Evaluation – Speech to Inform

  • Page ID
    206162
  • \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\) \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    ( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\) \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\) \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\) \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\id}{\mathrm{id}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\kernel}{\mathrm{null}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\range}{\mathrm{range}\,}\)

    \( \newcommand{\RealPart}{\mathrm{Re}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\ImaginaryPart}{\mathrm{Im}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Argument}{\mathrm{Arg}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\norm}[1]{\| #1 \|}\)

    \( \newcommand{\inner}[2]{\langle #1, #2 \rangle}\)

    \( \newcommand{\Span}{\mathrm{span}}\) \( \newcommand{\AA}{\unicode[.8,0]{x212B}}\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorA}[1]{\vec{#1}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorAt}[1]{\vec{\text{#1}}}      % arrow\)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorB}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorC}[1]{\textbf{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorD}[1]{\overrightarrow{#1}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectorDt}[1]{\overrightarrow{\text{#1}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vectE}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash{\mathbf {#1}}}} \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecs}[1]{\overset { \scriptstyle \rightharpoonup} {\mathbf{#1}} } \)

    \( \newcommand{\vecd}[1]{\overset{-\!-\!\rightharpoonup}{\vphantom{a}\smash {#1}}} \)

    Speaker: Hilda

    Evaluator: Jake

    CRITERIA TO CONSIDER:

    Introduction

    • Gain attention – Was OK but could have been better
    • Give audience incentive to listen
    • Establish credibility – yes
    • Introduce subject; central idea – yes
    • Preview main points
    • Transition to body

    Body

    • Clear, well-developed organization – OK–I followed it pretty good
    • Sufficient support material
    • Related topic to audience – OK
    • Oral footnotes – Kind of awkward
    • Transitions between main points

    Conclusion

    • Signal the end – ? Needs work!
    • Recap main points – Not sure
    • Clincher – OK

    Delivery – good

    • Eye Contact: Looked at everyone in audience and held eye contact
    • Notes: Used to jog memory; did not read from notes
    • Vocal/Verbal: Volume, rate, fluency
    • Appearance: Appropriate attire, posture

    COMMENTS

    After listening to this speech, the degree to which I feel informed (1 represents “Not at all,” 3 “Somewhat,” and 5 “Very”): 1 2 3 4 5

    What was the central idea of this speech? Alternative schools


    This page titled 9.10: Sample 2- Poor Peer Evaluation – Speech to Inform is shared under a CC BY license and was authored, remixed, and/or curated by Josh Misner and Geoff Carr via source content that was edited to the style and standards of the LibreTexts platform; a detailed edit history is available upon request.